An analysis of American academic libraries’ websites: 2000-2010 Noa Aharony Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel Abstract Purpose – The current study seeks to describe and analyze academic library websites in the years 2000 and 2010, as they appear both in the Internet Archive and in current library websites. Design/methodology/approach – A content analysis of 31 academic libraries homepages which were selected from the ACRL accredited LIS schools was conducted. Findings – Findings reveal that the content of academic library websites in the years 2000 and 2010 has much changed over the ten years, presenting an increasing use of e-journals and Web 2.0 applications, as well as a focus on library users, and a great use of graphics in websites. Practical implications – The comparison documented in the paper should prove very interesting and important to librarians, information scientists, LIS scholars and students, presenting trends, changes and innovations that have occurred within the scope of academic libraries over the last ten years. Originality/value – This study presents a yet unexplored dimension: the comparison, focusing especially on content, of academic library websites over a decade as they appear in the Internet Archive in 2000 and in the present library website in 2010. Keywords Academic library websites, Internet archive, Content analysis, Academic libraries, Internet, Digital libraries, Resources Paper type General review Introduction The field of library and information science (LIS) has evolved dynamically in recent years and now includes subjects such as information technology, information society, social information science, user studies and information ethics and law (Zins, 2007). Also, because of technological innovations coupled with digitisation efforts, many libraries provide websites that reflect their various current activities. It is thus interesting to trace the changes and developments that academic library websites have undergone over the last ten years, as expressed through the library websites themselves. The current study seeks to describe and analyse academic library websites in the years 2000 and 2010, as they appear both in the Internet Archive and in current library websites. The library website According to McGillis and Toms (2001), a library website reflects its virtual public face, acting as a front door to the collections, services, and, to an extent, its staff. Many users visit a library’s virtual website more often than they visit its physical location (Connell, 2008). The phenomenon of library websites first appeared in the 1990s. As Mosaic, the first browser, was launched in 1993, academic health science libraries began developing their websites (Brower, 2004). In 1996 the library website at the The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-0473.htm EL 30,6 764 Received June 2011 Accepted July 2011 The Electronic Library Vol. 30 No. 6, 2012 pp. 764-776 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0264-0473 DOI 10.1108/02640471211282091
Transcript
An analysis of Americanacademic libraries’ websites:
2000-2010Noa Aharony
Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
Abstract
Purpose – The current study seeks to describe and analyze academic library websites in the years2000 and 2010, as they appear both in the Internet Archive and in current library websites.
Design/methodology/approach – A content analysis of 31 academic libraries homepages whichwere selected from the ACRL accredited LIS schools was conducted.
Findings – Findings reveal that the content of academic library websites in the years 2000 and 2010has much changed over the ten years, presenting an increasing use of e-journals and Web 2.0applications, as well as a focus on library users, and a great use of graphics in websites.
Practical implications – The comparison documented in the paper should prove very interesting andimportant to librarians, information scientists, LIS scholars and students, presenting trends, changes andinnovations that have occurred within the scope of academic libraries over the last ten years.
Originality/value – This study presents a yet unexplored dimension: the comparison, focusingespecially on content, of academic library websites over a decade as they appear in the InternetArchive in 2000 and in the present library website in 2010.
IntroductionThe field of library and information science (LIS) has evolved dynamically in recentyears and now includes subjects such as information technology, information society,social information science, user studies and information ethics and law (Zins, 2007).Also, because of technological innovations coupled with digitisation efforts, manylibraries provide websites that reflect their various current activities. It is thusinteresting to trace the changes and developments that academic library websites haveundergone over the last ten years, as expressed through the library websitesthemselves. The current study seeks to describe and analyse academic library websitesin the years 2000 and 2010, as they appear both in the Internet Archive and in currentlibrary websites.
The library websiteAccording to McGillis and Toms (2001), a library website reflects its virtual publicface, acting as a front door to the collections, services, and, to an extent, its staff. Manyusers visit a library’s virtual website more often than they visit its physical location(Connell, 2008). The phenomenon of library websites first appeared in the 1990s. AsMosaic, the first browser, was launched in 1993, academic health science librariesbegan developing their websites (Brower, 2004). In 1996 the library website at the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0264-0473.htm
EL30,6
764
Received June 2011Accepted July 2011
The Electronic LibraryVol. 30 No. 6, 2012pp. 764-776q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0264-0473DOI 10.1108/02640471211282091
University of Nevada-Las Vegas (UNLV) Libraries became operational (Vaughan,2001). Academic library websites are keys in an institution’s presentation ofinformation resources and services (Cohen, 2003), and, as such, may be seen as thelibraries’ virtual presentations to the world (Liu, 2008).
Academic library websites provide information about libraries and library servicesas well as access to online catalogues, electronic databases, digital collections anddifferent library tutorials; academic library websites are thus gateways to informationfor faculty and students. Today, students can ask reference questions online, conductresearch in databases, place interlibrary loan requests online, and obtain academicarticles electronically (Connell, 2008). Even though academic library websites providehigher quality and better scholarly information than previously, they face competitionin the area of user preferences. The massive growth of internet sources and newsearching and sharing tools seem to provide users with power, ease and fun ininformation seeking. In addition, libraries face a new generation of users who aretechnologically savvy and utilize information in different spheres of their life (Frey,2010; Thomas and McDonald, 2006). Spurred by this competition, library websitesshould capture and motivate the user, provide useful, new and interactive services andproducts, and encourage repeated visitation (McGillis and Toms, 2001).
Various researchers have examined the issue of academic library websites,concentrating especially on design, navigation, usability and content. Hightower et al.(1998) assert that academic library website pages can be classified into: homepage,directional: library hours and policy; reference: collections and resource guides; andcombination. Cohen and Still (1999) note that library websites serve four purposes:information, reference, research and instruction. Welch (2005) explores another aspect:the potential and reality of using the academic library website to market libraryresources, services and other special events, especially as budgets shrink. Over theyears various studies have been conducted (Chen et al., 2009; George, 2005; Heinrichset al., 2007) focusing on usability in academic library websites. Usability tests weredeveloped in order to examine the awareness of how a site is used and to provide amodel for evaluation (Tolliver et al., 2005). These tests usually provide a sample of thetypes of information users seek on a website.
Internet ArchiveThe Internet Archive, a digital library that archives various resources, is actually alarge collection of computers in San Francisco, staffed by skilled programmers. Thearchive aims primarily to store a huge collection of digital information, thus recordingthe history of the web without making any judgments about which pages are worthsaving. Although it is not the only archive on the net, it is the largest (Masanes, 2002;Rauber et al., 2002; Thelwall and Vaughanb, 2004).
The Internet Archive was founded as a nonprofit organisation in 1996 by BrewsterKahle, founder of Alexa Internet. Alexa’s web crawlers search the web and collect webpages and information related to them, and, after a six-month period, the pages enterthe Internet Archive (Edwards, 2004). Although the archive was funded by US sources,it is freely open to anyone with web access (Koman, 2002). The Internet Archive,collaborating with all libraries and digital libraries, acquires, organizes, anddisseminates information using contemporary technologies (Fox and Urs, 2002). TheInternet Archive stores all retrieved copies of web pages (indexed by their URL), so
Academiclibraries’websites
765
that changes in a page over time can be tracked, and old pages deleted from the Webcan also be located (Thelwall and Vaughanb, 2004).
There are two ways to access the archive. In the first users enter a URL and thearchive returns a table of information detailing all available copies of the page, alongwith archiving dates. The second grants permission to those with programming skillsto use the archive’s computers to access the data files directly. Because the InternetArchive keeps a record of the evolving web, it is a key resource for various researchersexploring the web (Hawking et al., 1999; Suel and Yuan, n.d.; Vaughanb and Thelwall,2003). Thelwall and Vaughanb (2004) assert that scholars should rely upon the InternetArchive first when: a cited resource in an academic paper disappears; second, when theresearcher would like to conduct longitudinal studies; and third, when researchers areinterested in different periods of web growth.
Problem statementThe last 20 years in libraries are characterised by major changes and evolvingtechnologies. One of these is that most academic libraries provide a website that servesas a gateway to library collections and services. Various studies have been conductedrelating to different aspects of academic library websites. This study, however,presents a yet unexplored dimension: the comparison, focusing especially on content,of academic library websites over a decade as they appear in the Internet Archive in2000 and in the present library website in 2010. This comparison should prove veryinteresting and important to librarians, information scientists, LIS scholars andstudents, presenting trends, changes and innovations that have occurred within thescope of academic libraries over the last ten years.
The two primary research questions are:
(1) Is there a difference between the content of academic library websites in theyear 2000 and in the year 2010?
(2) What are the LIS current trends and tendencies being expressed through thoseacademic library websites?
Study methodologyData collectionThe first phase of the investigation involved choosing academic library homepages,which appear both on a current webpage and in the Internet Archive, to be included inthe sample. These were located by examining the Association of College and ResearchLibraries (ACRL) accredited LIS schools, numbering 57. A total of 31 academiclibraries were selected from this list based on the following criteria:
(1) The library has a current homepage.
(2) The library homepage appears in the Internet Archive in the year 2000.
Four out of the 31 libraries were not found in the Internet Archive in 2000, so data werecollected from the first year that they appear in the Internet Archive (Iowa University,2002; Missouri-Columbia University, 2002; Kent State University, 2004 and OklahomaUniversity, 2005). The following list provides the names of libraries:
(1) Southern Connecticut State University.
(2) Southern Mississippi University.
EL30,6
766
(3) Texas – Austin University.
(4) Texas Woman’s University.
(5) Washington University.
(6) Wayne State University.
(7) Western Ontario University.
(8) Wisconsin – Madison University.
(9) Wisconsin – Milwaukee University.
(10) Alabama University.
(11) Alberta University.
(12) Arizona University.
(13) California – Los Angeles University.
(14) Catholic University of America.
(15) Clarion University of Pennsylvania.
(16) Dalhousie University.
(17) Drexel University.
(18) Indiana University.
(19) Iowa University.
(20) Kent State University.
(21) Kentucky University.
(22) Louisiana State University.
(23) Maryland University.
(24) Michigan University.
(25) Missouri-Columbia University.
(26) North Carolina – Chapel Hill University.
(27) North Texas University.
(28) Oklahoma University.
(29) Pittsburgh University.
(30) Rutgers University.
(31) South Carolina University.
The year 2000 was chosen because: firstly, while the Internet Archive beganarchiving its documents in 1996, most of the academic library content is found fromthe year 2000 onwards; and secondly, a ten year period was deemed suitable fortracing the changes, developments, and trends of the last decade, which containedmany technological innovations and conceptual changes in the field of library andinformation science.
Data analysisThe second phase of the investigation is a content analysis of academic librarywebsites in the two periods, based on Qutab and Mahmood’s (2009) website content
Academiclibraries’websites
767
analysis and modified for the purpose of the current study. The modified checklistincludes 42 items divided into eight categories: site description, currency, websiteaids and tools, library general information, library resources, services, links toe-resources, and value added services. Table I presents the categories and thechecklist.
Category Items
1. Site description 1. Use of graphics2. Text-only version
2. Currency 1. Copyright information2. Updating date
3. Website aids and tools 1. Feedback link2. Site search3. Frequently asked questions4. Site map5. Web site index
4. Library general information 1. Library collections2. Library services3. Library sources4. Hours of operation5. Policies and procedures6. Mail to librarians7. Tutorials about library use8. Staff directory9. Library branches
10. Chat with librarian11. Newsletter12. Ongoing projects
5. Library resources 1. OPAC2. Other reference sources (dictionaries, encyclopedias . . .)3. Library selected internet sources4. Links to branches and departments5. Bibliographic databases6. Links to other libraries online catalogues
6. Library services 1. Ask the librarian2. Reservation form
7. Links to E-resources 1. Other databases2. E-journals3. E-books4. Reference tools list5. Links to search engines
8. Value added services 1. New arrivals section2. Library events calendar3. Web 2.04. RSS feed5. Twitter6. Facebook7. Blog8. Mobile site
Table I.Categories and checklist
EL30,6
768
Each webpage was assessed by a single classifier and then cross-checked by a secondclassifier. The final percentage of agreement for all coding decisions was 89 per cent,which suggests that the coding classification used was reliable.
Findings and resultsSite descriptionIn 2010 all 31 libraries (100 per cent) had graphics (a banner or library pictures) on theirwebsites, while in 2000 only four libraries (12.90 per cent) had graphics while theremaining 27 libraries presented a text-only version of the website. Colourful letterswere used in the text versions of 20 (64.51 per cent) of the 27 libraries.
CurrencyCurrency and authority of information are judged by a website’s copyright andupdating date (Qutab and Mahmood, 2009). Copyright information (date and copyrightowner) was provided by 23 libraries (74.19 per cent) in 2010 and by 15 (48.38 per cent)libraries in 2000. However, only six (19.35 per cent) libraries displayed the lastupdating date in 2010, while 18 (58.06) did in 2000.
Website aids and toolsWebsite aids or tools include links that can facilitate users navigating the site,improving their ability to locate relevant information in a quick and simple manner.This section included five items: feedback link; site search; frequently asked questions;site map and website index. Table II presents results in this section.
The table shows that in 2010 the most frequent website aid was the site searchfunction, while in 2000 the feedback link and the site search function were morefrequent (although much smaller than in 2010).
Library general informationThis section includes specific items related to the library, i.e. library collections,sources, services, operation hours, tutorials etc. Table III provides results for thissection.
The table reveals that in 2010 the most common library general informationprovided was library services and library sources, followed by tutorials about libraryuse, hours of operation function, and then mail to librarians. In 2000 the most commonlibrary general information provided was also library services and library sources(although smaller in size), library collections and tutorials about library use.
2010 2000Item Frequency % Frequency %
1. Feedback link 23 74.19 16 51.612. Site search 30 96.77 16 51.613. Frequently asked questions 20 64.51 6 19.354. Site map 11 35.48 12 38.705. Website index 13 41.93 10 32.25
Table II.Website aids and tools in
2010 and in 2000
Academiclibraries’websites
769
Library resourcesThis section was designed in order to explore library resources that provideinformation for librarians and users such as OPAC, reference sources, library selectedinternet resources, bibliographic databases etc. Table IV provides results for thissection.
The table shows that the most frequent library resources presented by the librarywebsite in 2010 were other reference sources, followed by OPAC and bibliographicdatabases. In 2000, in contrast, the most frequent library resources presented by thelibrary website were bibliographic databases.
Library servicesIt is important to know which and to what extent library services are offered by thelibrary webpage. The current study focused on the “ask the librarian service” service,which appeared on the website of 28 (98.32 per cent) libraries in 2010, and only on nine(29.03 per cent) in 2000, and on the reservation form, found in six (19.35 per cent)websites in 2010, and in eight (9.67 per cent) in 2000.
Links to e-resourcesLinks to electronic sources, essential to any educational or informational site, includeaccess to electronic databases, e-journals, e-books, reference tools and various searchengines. Table V presents the findings for this section and demonstrates that in 2010the e-resources to which library websites most commonly linked were: e-journals,
2010 2000Item Frequency % Frequency %
1. Library collections 25 80.64 29 93.542. Library services 31 100 30 96.773. Library sources 31 100 30 96.774. Hours of operation 28 90.32 25 80.645. Policies and procedures 18 58.06 14 45.166. Mail to librarians 27 87.09 11 35.487. Tutorials about library use 29 93.54 23 90.328. Staff directory 23 74.19 7 22.589. Library braches 5 16.12 14 45.16
Table III.Library generalinformation in 2010 andin 2000
2010 2000Item Frequency % Frequency %
1. OPAC 28 90.32 0 02. Other reference sources (dictionaries, encyclopedias etc.) 29 93.54 26 83.603. Library selected internet sources 26 83.60 24 77.414. Links to branches and departments 14 45.16 15 48.385. Bibliographic databases 28 90.32 28 90.326. Links to online catalogues of other libraries 19 61.29 21 67.74
Table IV.Library resources in 2010and in 2000
EL30,6
770
followed by links to other databases and to a reference tools list. In 2000 the mostcommon link to e-resources was to other databases.
Value added servicesThese services are essential for library websites to compete with multiple other webservice providers. They include the new arrivals section and the library eventscalendar. They also refer to Web 2.0 applications, which have become common on theweb in general and particularly in libraries. Table VI provides the findings that in 2010the most common value added services were links to Web 2.0, to the library eventscalendar, and to an RSS feed; while in 2000 the most common value added service wasa link to the new arrival section.
DiscussionRegarding the first research question, which dealt with the difference between thecontent of academic library websites in the years 2000 and 2010, much seems to havechanged over the ten years. The following section presents the differences according tothe categories used in the content analysis.
Site description, the first category, was completely changed from a text-only versioninto graphic versions. This change is easily understood, given the tremendoustechnological evolution over the last decade that enables web designers to usegraphics, such as banners or library pictures, on the library websites. Internet users areno longer accustomed to a text-only version, but are familiar with the use of colourfulgraphics on various websites. Thus, the use of graphics on library academic websitesattracts and motivates library patrons to enter the site and examine its content.
Regarding currency, the second category, which includes the copyright andupdating date categories, the research findings present a picture of a flawed situation.
2010 2000Item Frequency % Frequency %
1. New arrival section 5 16.12 9 29.032. Library events calendar 18 58.06 4 12.903. Web 2.0 22 70.96 0 04. RSS feed 17 54.83 0 05. Twitter 12 38.70 0 06. Facebook 14 45.16 0 07. Blog 4 12.90 0 08. Mobile site 10 32.25 0 0
While the copyright issue is mentioned more often in 2010 than in 2000, its appearanceis still limited and not comprehensive. One might have assumed that nowadays, withthe increased use of different internet applications, this issue would be emphasised,expanded and directly introduced to students and scholars, explaining its various andcomplicated aspects. Another surprising finding was the limited use of date updatingin 2010, which was much smaller than in 2000. It was assumed that libraries, whichintroduce new sources and databases, would inform their clients as to the last updatingdate of materials, so that students and faculty members can determine whether theyhave the latest materials, or whether they should continue their research in otherlibraries, sources, or databases.
Regarding website aids or tools, including links to facilitate the website navigation,the results show that in both periods the site search function was the most frequent,although its use was limited in 2000. This finding indicates that in both periodslibraries understood the key role of the site search in facilitating users’ navigation anduse of the site. This, however, contrasts the Tolppanen et al.’s (2000) claim thatmedium-sized university academic library websites should improve their design byincorporating a site search box. Furthermore, in 2000, the feedback link was equivalentin size to the site search, indicating the importance libraries attributed to patrons’feedback about library services and collections.
The next section deals with library general information, provided by librarywebsites. Various researchers (Cohen and Still, 1999; Liu, 2008; Vaughan, 2001) havealready stated that library websites may often serve to disseminate information aboutlibrary collections and services. Findings in this study suggest that, in both periods,the general information about library services and library sources were most common,although, again, much smaller in 2000 than in 2010. Libraries seemingly make use oftheir websites to expose and market their services and sources to potential users. Thisfinding echoes Welch’s (2005) research that claimed that libraries may use theirwebsites in order to market their services. In addition, that in both periods librariesprovide tutorials about library use echoes Cohen and Still’s (1999) findings that librarywebsites serve for instruction, and illustrates the importance libraries attribute to theinstruction of patrons about library sources, databases and general use. However, in2010 the functions of operation hours and mail to librarians also scored highly,emphasising the importance of marketing, announcing hours of operation to librarypatrons and the ability to contact the librarians. It should be noted that in 2000 thecategory of library collections was the second largest, stressing the use libraries madeof the opportunity to present and market their collections to potential users.
The library resources category reveals an interesting picture. In 2010 libraries hadlinks to other reference sources, to OPAC and to bibliographic databases, indicating thevariety of resources libraries offer. In 2000, the libraries offered a far more limitedscope of resources, focusing mainly on bibliographic databases. This finding reflectsthe growth in library resources along the years, and also follows Cohen and Still’s(1999) recommendation about references and research.
Regarding the library services offered by the library webpage, in 2010 the “ask thelibrarian service” is the most frequent, and much larger than in 2000. This findingreiterates another study (Tolppanen et al., 2005) about the increasing presence of cellphone policy and chat reference service on the library academic website. Librariesfocus on users and on assisting them in managing and making use of library services
EL30,6
772
and collections, and thus provide them with a means to request help from a librarian.Although much smaller, the reservation form was also a common service in bothperiods.
The following section focuses on links to e-resources, including access to electronicdatabases, e-journals, e-books, reference tools, and different search engines. Vaughan(2001) has mentioned that the library website may serve as a portal to electronicresources. The comparison of links to e-resources in 2000 and in 2010 reveals a sizabledifference between the two periods. The most common e-resource in 2010 wase-journals, indicating their widespread use, a phenomenon not so common in 2000.This result is commensurate with Blummer’s (2007) finding that technologicaldevelopments provided library websites an opportunity to offer e-journals, e-books andvirtual reference. However, in both periods, the links to other databases were also verycommon, presenting the tendency to provide library users with access to otherdatabases through the library webpage.
Concentrating on the value added services, essential for competing with variousservices offered by many other web services, we notice a great difference between thetwo periods. In 2010 the most common value added services were links to Web 2.0,indicating the use academic libraries make of various Web 2.0 applications. Thisfinding duplicates other studies that reported the libraries’ understanding that stayingrelevant in the information age, which evolves dynamically; demands that they adapttheir services to their patrons who use modern technological applications and thereforeuse new technology in the library website (Aharony, 2010, 2012; Harinarayana andRaju, 2010; Liu, 2008; Nguyen, 2008). Interestingly, in 2000, the new arrival section,which announces to patrons the new library’s acquisitions, was the most commonvalue added service.
Summing up, it seems that 2010 academic library websites face a new reality. Onone hand libraries are aware of both the great competition caused by the growth ofInternet resources and new searching and sharing tools, which attract library users,and on the other hand they are familiar with the new technological applications andplatforms, assimilate and make use of them, in order to present, offer and market theircollections and services to their patrons. This tendency should continue and expand inorder to stay “relevant” in our dynamic, evolving period.
Regarding the second research question, focusing on LIS current trends andtendencies expressed through the academic library websites, we notice some new,major tendencies emerging: the first involves the increasing use of e-journals and Web2.0 applications. The increased use of e-journals reflects the growing use of these inlibraries. Library patrons enjoy using e-versions of journals, which allow them work onprofessional materials at home or work without having to come to the library’sphysical building. The second trend of Web 2.0 application use reflects the changelibraries have undergone in the last few years, adapting and making use of newtechnologies. This tendency has already been already reported in the professionalliterature by various researchers (Aharony, 2010, 2012; Harinarayana and Raju, 2010;Liu, 2008). Libraries seem to face the challenge of making their libraries visible bypromoting their services on the Web 2.0 platform, and by providing user-centredservices via Web 2.0 facilities.
Also interesting is the opportunity offered in 2010 by the libraries to their clients tosearch and examine other references sources, OPAC and bibliographic databases. In
Academiclibraries’websites
773
2000, in contrast, bibliographic databases were the most common library resourceoffered by the library. This finding indicates that by now libraries services andcollections have developed, and that, therefore, the library offers patrons access to avariety of resources, and not only to bibliographic databases.
A further aspect revealed in the current study is the focus on library users, arecommendation that was already expressed in Liu’s (2008) study about futureacademic library websites. The current findings suggest that in 2010 librariesseemingly focus more than in 2000 on their users, trying to facilitate their work in thelibrary by offering them different tools such as: ask the librarian, site search andfrequently asked questions. Furthermore, that libraries make use of Web 2.0applications focusing on the users also emphasises the user-centred attitude (Maness,2006).
The last tendency, which is not surprising at all, involves the use of graphics inwebsites, and it was already presented in Liu’s (2008) recommendations. As technologyhas changed and influenced website structure and design, libraries must compete withother internet websites. They thus use graphics such as banners and pictures in orderto attract and motivate patrons to access the library website.
However, one should bear in mind the fact that academic library websites in 2010still display a limited concern about the copyright issue; an important, complicatedtopic which should be more emphasised and comprehensively presented to differentlibrary users.
ConclusionsCohen and Still (1999) examined academic library websites finding out that these sitesmight serve four possible purposes: as a tool for information, reference, research, andinstruction. The present study suggests that 2010 academic library websites offer theirpatrons the above services. Furthermore, since library websites serve as gateways tolibraries and reflect their essence, the research findings echo the developments,changes and new aspects in the library environment. The limitation of the currentstudy is that the sample includes only American libraries, thus maybe the findingscannot generalise non-American libraries. In addition, four out of 31 ACRL academiclibraries did not have a website in the Internet Archive in 2000, thus the researchermade use of first website library data which were available on the Internet Archive.
It is interesting to follow the new tendencies emerging from the current study,focusing on the adoption of e-journals, Web 2.0 use, a user-centred approach, and awide access to various resources. The researcher recommends that in order to attain abroader perspective of changes in library websites, further research be conducted,examining and comparing other library websites such as public library websites, orother academic library websites in other countries over a period of ten years.
References
Aharony, N. (2010), “Twitter use in libraries: an exploratory analysis”, Journal of WebLibrarianship, Vol. 4.
Aharony, N. (2012), “Facebook use in libraries: an exploratory analysis”, Aslib Proceedings,Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 358-72.
Blummer, B.A. (2007), “A literature review of academic library web page studies”, Journal of WebLibrarianship, Vol. 1, pp. 45-64.
EL30,6
774
Brower, S.M. (2004), “Academic health science library website navigation: an analysis of fortyone websites and their navigation tools”, Journal of Medical Library Association, Vol. 92,pp. 412-20.
Chen, Y., Germain, C.A. and Yang, H. (2009), “An exploration into the practices of library webusability in ARL academic libraries”, Journal of the American Society for InformationScience and Technology, Vol. 60, pp. 953-68.
Cohen, L.B. (2003), “A two-tiered model for analyzing library website usage statistics, part 1:web server logs”, portal: Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 3, pp. 315-26.
Cohen, L.B. and Still, J.M. (1999), “A comparison of research university and two year collegelibrary web sites: content, functionality and form”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 60,pp. 275-89.
Connell, R.S. (2008), “Survey of web developers in academic libraries”, The Journal of AcademicLibrarianship, Vol. 34, pp. 121-9.
Edwards, E. (2004), “Ephemeral to enduring: the internet archive and its role preserving digitalmedia”, Information Technology and Libraries, pp. 1-7.
Fox, E. and Urs, S. (2002), “Digital libraries”, Annual Review of Information Science andTechnology, Vol. 36, pp. 503-89.
Frey, T. (2010), “The future of libraries: beginning the great transformation”, available at: www.futuristspeaker.com/2006/11/the-future-of-libraries (accessed 28 August 2010).
George, C.A. (2005), “Usability testing and design of a library website: an iterative approach”,OCLC Systems and Services, Vol. 21, pp. 167-78.
Harinarayana, N.S. and Raju, V.N. (2010), “Web 2.0 features in university library web sites”,The Electronic Library, Vol. 1, pp. 69-88.
Hawking, D., Craswell, N. and Thistlewaite, P. (1999), “Overview of the TREC-7 very largecollection track”, in Voorhees, E.M. and Harman, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh TextRetrieval Conference (TREC-7), NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, pp. 91-104.
Heinrichs, J.H., Lim, K., Lim, J. and Spangenberg, M.A. (2007), “Determining factors of academiclibrary web site usage”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science andTechnology, Vol. 58, pp. 2325-34.
Hightower, C., Shih, J. and Tilghman, A. (1998), “Recommendations for benchmarking web siteusage among academic libraries”, College and Research Libraries, Vol. 59, pp. 61-79.
Koman, R. (2002), “How the wayback machine works”, available at: www.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2002/01/18/brewster.html (accessed 20 September 2010).
Liu, S. (2008), “Engaging users: the future of academic library web sites”, College & ResearchLibraries, Vol. 69, pp. 6-27.
McGillis, L. and Toms, E.G. (2001), “Usability of the academic library web site: implications fordesign”, College & Research Libraries, Vol. 62, pp. 355-67.
Maness, J. (2006), “Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries”, Webology, Vol. 3,Article 25.
Masanes, J. (2002), “Towards continuous web archiving: first results and an agenda for thefuture”, D-Lib Magazine, available at: www.dlib.org/dlib/december02/masanes/12masanes.html (accessed 25 September 2010).
Nguyen, L. (2008), “A survey of the application of Web 2.0 in Australasian university libraries”,Library Hi Tech, Vol. 26, pp. 630-53.
Qutab, S. and Mahmood, H. (2009), “Library web sites in Pakistan: an analysis of content”,Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, Vol. 43, pp. 430-45.
Academiclibraries’websites
775
Rauber, A., Bruckner, R.M., Aschenbrenner, A., Witvoet, O. and Kaiser, M. (2002), “Uncoveringinformation hidden in web archives: a glimpse at web analysis building on datawarehouses”, D-Lib Magazine, available at: www.dlib.org/dlib/december02/12contents.html (accessed 25 September 2010).
Suel, T. and Yuan, J. (n.d.), “Compressing the graph structure of the web”, available at: http://cis.poly.edu/suel/papers/graph.pdf (accessed 2 September 2010).
Thelwall, M. and Vaughan, L. (2004), “A fair history of the web? Examining country balance inthe internet archive”, Library & Information Science Research, Vol. 26, pp. 162-76.
Thomas, C. and McDonald, R. (2006), “Disconnects between library culture and millennialgeneration values”, Educause, Vol. 29.
Tolliver, R., Carter, D., Chapman, S., Edwards, P., Fisher, J., Haines, A., Krolikowski, L. and Price, R.(2005), “Website redesign and testing with a usability consultant: lessons learned”, OCLCSystems and Services, Vol. 21, pp. 156-66.
Tolppanen, B., Miller, J.P. and Wooden, M. (2000), “An examination of library world wide websites at medium-sized universities”, Internet Reference Services Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 5-7.
Tolppanen, B., Miller, J.P. and Wooden, M. (2005), “Library world wide web sites atmedium-sized universities: a re-examination”, Internet Reference Services Quarterly,Vol. 10, pp. 7-18.
Vaughan, L. (2001), “Three iterations of an academic library web site”, Information Technologyand Libraries, Vol. 20, pp. 81-92.
Vaughan, L. and Thelwall, M. (2003), “Scholarly use of the web: what are the key inducers oflinks to journal web sites?”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science andTechnology, Vol. 54, pp. 29-38.
Welch, J.M. (2005), “The electronic welcome mat: the academic library web site as a marketingand public relations tool”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 31, pp. 225-8.
Zins, H. (2007), “Conceptions of information science”, Journal of the American Society forInformation Science and Technology, Vol. 5, pp. 335-50.
About the authorNoa Aharony received her PhD in 2003 from the School of Education at Bar Ilan University(Israel). Her research interests are in education for library and information science, schoollibrarianship, educational technology, knowledge economy, marketing and Web 2.0. Dr Aharonyhas published in refereed LIS and education journals and teaches courses in information literacy,school librarianship, social databases, legal databases and Web 2.0 at the School of InformationScience at Bar Ilan University. Noa Aharony can be contacted at: [email protected]
EL30,6
776
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
